Many scholars of feminist IR claim that mainstream theorists’ conception of IR is incomplete or partial. How do feminist IR scholars seek to remedy this?
The feminist theory of International Relations introduces gender as an analytical tool for understanding global power relations and as a normative position from which to construct alternative worldviews. For them, there lies the partiality of mainstream theorists who they accuse of focusing on the system level of analysis which only focuses on a system that has masculinity enshrined in its theoretical construction. In order to remedy this, feminist theorists look inward to transform mainstream IR theories in order to reveal the contributions of women in international politics.
Empirical Feminism argues that realist and liberal scholars theorizes politics and international relations in a way that guarantees that women will be absent from their inquiry (Steurnagel 1990: 79–80). In an attempt to remedy this, empirical feminists seek to make gender a central analytical category in studies of foreign policy, security, global political economy through an exploration of particular historical and geographical contexts (True, 215).
Analytical feminists argue that security must be redefined and that Gender is very useful in understanding post 9/11 International relations. A case used to back this claim as highlighted by Tickner include the statements of Osama Bin Laden which suggested that in the broader sense, the actions of the terrorists were directed at the depraved morale of the West, in other words, a rejection of Western gender relations.
Normative feminists are the third set of feminists who offer a remedy to the partiality of mainstream theorists. According to Jacqui True, “Normative feminism reflects on the process of international Relations theorizing as part of a normative agenda for global change.” Hannah Arendt in tackling this redefines power as the human ability to act in concert or action that is taken with others who share similar concerns (Sylvester, 11).
They also go on to reconceptualize the concept of security as previously defined by mainstream theorists. For Christine Sylvester, Security is the absence of violence whether it be military, economic, or sexual. For this set of feminists, For we to be able to think of National security more as a concept of IR, it must be democratized to include the dichotomy in social relations and put more focus on gender relations especially the actions and activities of women.
References
1. Ackerly, B. A., & True, J. (2019). Feminism. In Theories of International Relations.Palgrave Macmillan. 2005. Pg. 213.
2. Sylvester, C. (2005). The art of war/the war question in (feminist) IR. Millennium, 33(3),855–878.
3. Tickner, J. A. (2017). Reading 4.6 Men, Women, and War. In Conflict After the Cold War (pp. 235–248). Routledge.
4. Drezner, D. W. (2014). Theories of International Politics and Zombies: Revived Edition.
